CHARLES AND IVY LIMITED v CHELSEA SUPPLIES LTD
Court: High Court (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court)
Decision date: 9 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] EWHC 2556 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
The Defendant admitted copying 20 CGI fencing images from the Claimants' website; the court found the Defendant fixed with its web-developer agent's knowledge (or at least reason to believe) that copyright subsisted, rejected the "placeholder" defence, and awarded compensatory and additional damages. Compensatory (notional licence) damages were assessed at £4,000 and additional damages under s.97(2) CDPA at £3,000, with liability-stage costs of £13,704.50; judgment for the Claimants in £7,000 plus interest and the stated costs, payable within 14 days. Further submissions on costs for the quantum inquiry are to follow.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
From the judgment as recorded in the notes: knowledge or reason to believe acquired by an agent acting in the course of his work is attributable to the principal for purposes of assessing copyright liability; commercially produced, non‑generic competitor marketing images used to launch competing pages can justify a notional licence fee reflecting realistic commercial bargaining positions rather than a merely nominal sum; and where use is flagrantly infringing and confers a benefit (eg earlier market entry), modest additional damages under s.97(2) CDPA may be awarded even if the live use was of limited duration and images were removed after notice.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The notes record observations that poor and selective disclosure, failure to call likely relevant witnesses and late production of oral evidence may justify adverse inferences about missing material, and that the short duration of live use and prompt removal after notification are mitigating factors when quantifying additional damages for flagrancy.